Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

Virchows Arch. 2017 Dec;471(6):721-729. doi: 10.1007/s00428-017-2162-7. Epub 2017 Jun 26.

RAS screening in colorectal cancer: a comprehensive analysis of the results from the UK NEQAS colorectal cancer external quality assurance schemes (2009-2016).

Author information

1
Department of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds, England, LS9 7TF, UK. s.d.richman@leeds.ac.uk.
2
UK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SA, UK.
3
Cardiff and Vale UHB-Medical Genetics University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
4
UK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SA, UK. Sandi.Deans@ed.ac.uk.

Abstract

Evidence strongly indicates that extended RAS testing should be undertaken in mCRC patients, prior to prescribing anti-EGFR therapies. With more laboratories implementing testing, the requirement for External Quality Assurance schemes increases, thus ensuring high standards of molecular analysis. Data was analysed from 15 United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS) for Molecular Genetics Colorectal cancer external quality assurance (EQA) schemes, delivered between 2009 and 2016. Laboratories were provided annually with nine colorectal tumour samples for genotyping. Information on methodology and extent of testing coverage was requested, and scores given for genotyping, interpretation and clerical accuracy. There has been a sixfold increase in laboratory participation (18 in 2009 to 108 in 2016). For RAS genotyping, fewer laboratories now use Roche cobas®, pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing, with more moving to next generation sequencing (NGS). NGS is the most commonly employed technology for BRAF and PIK3CA mutation screening. KRAS genotyping errors were seen in ≤10% laboratories, until the 2014-2015 scheme, when there was an increase to 16.7%, corresponding to a large increase in scheme participants. NRAS genotyping errors peaked at 25.6% in the first 2015-2016 scheme but subsequently dropped to below 5%. Interpretation and clerical accuracy scores have been consistently good throughout. Within this EQA scheme, we have observed that the quality of molecular analysis for colorectal cancer has continued to improve, despite changes in the required targets, the volume of testing and the technologies employed. It is reassuring to know that laboratories clearly recognise the importance of participating in EQA schemes.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer; Colorectal; External quality assurance

PMID:
28653203
PMCID:
PMC5711992
DOI:
10.1007/s00428-017-2162-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center